THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

klik here to view the video from walters post.... turn on speakers

Interesting viewpoint in today's WSJ

October 6, 2004


CAPITAL JOURNAL
By GERALD SEIB


October Surprise?
The Wild Cards
In Election Deck
October 6, 2004; Page A4

A ripple moved through the presidential campaign yesterday morning with the disclosure that L. Paul Bremer, formerly the White House point man in Iraq, has been telling audiences that a big reason for the mess there is that the Bush administration didn't put enough troops on the ground at the outset.

Mr. Bremer also told an audience at DePauw University that he "raised this issue a number of times with our government," but didn't get results, according to the university's Web site. (See a summary of his comments1.)

Obviously, that kind of late-campaign bolt from the blue -- which became fodder for last night's vice-presidential debate -- makes life uncomfortable for President -- and candidate -- Bush. It does something else: It helps illustrate how this election, more than any since the Carter-Reagan standoff in 1980, remains subject to an October surprise.

An election this close, being held amid an international climate of tension and uncertainty, stands an unusually high chance of being tipped one way or the other by a dramatic event in the next four weeks. Mr. Bush's standing isn't solid enough, nor is Sen. John Kerry's challenge strong enough, to insulate either candidate from an outside shock. Right now, beyond Iraq, five other areas hold the potential for an October surprise that could swing the race:

• The Afghan election. Almost entirely lost in the sound and fury of the Iraq debate is the fact that the other country in the middle of the war on terrorism, Afghanistan, will try to hold an election this Saturday. President Hamid Karzai is running against 17 -- count 'em, 17 -- opponents.


Mr. Karzai is favored to win. The bigger question is whether the vote can take place in something resembling a calm and orderly environment. If it does, that's a big boost for President Bush and his argument that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will pave the way to democracy and, hence, stability in the Middle East. But if the voting is derailed or overshadowed by violence -- and both Mr. Karzai and his running mate already have been targets of attack -- doubts would be pumped up. Sen. Kerry's line of attack, that the war in Iraq has distracted from the essential business of cleaning up the Taliban and al Qaeda around Afghanistan, would be bolstered.

• Capture of Osama bin Laden. The shock waves would be huge if al Qaeda's leader were caught or killed in the next four weeks. The waves would still be large if U.S. or allied forces grabbed al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri.


The capture of Mr. bin Laden would do more than any other event to undermine the Kerry contention that Iraq has dangerously distracted attention and resources from the war on terrorism. Nothing else would so buttress the Bush argument that progress is being made along many fronts in that war, and that perseverance is all that is required.

• A truly galvanizing debate moment. As much attention as the first presidential debate and last night's vice-presidential debate received, it isn't clear that one truly defining moment has emerged. The next two presidential debates -- Friday, in a town-hall format in St. Louis, and next Wednesday, a question-and-answer session on economic and domestic policy in Arizona -- have the potential to be more wide open and less predictable.


There's no doubt that the first debate helped Mr. Kerry and hurt Mr. Bush. But neither that general perception, nor the ribbing Mr. Bush has taken for his grimacing and scowling during that debate, translate into the kind of force that can either crystallize or change widespread perceptions.

• An even bigger oil shock. The economy, the stock market and the campaign all have been remarkably impervious to $50-a-barrel oil. But any catastrophic blow to the oil supply line between now and the election -- especially one resulting in a stock-market plunge -- would scramble the equation.


To whose benefit? Hard to say. It's always tempting to say that bad news hurts the incumbent president. But in this case, a shock to the system might remind voters that they liked the firm and resolute way Mr. Bush responded to another crisis, the 9/11 terror attacks.

• A terrorist attack. This is the obvious wild card in the election deck. Fears of an attack are high; knowledge of specific plans is low. The possibility is surrounded by unanswerable questions: Does al Qaeda want to disrupt the election? Does it want to create havoc so President Bush loses? Or will it try to calibrate its actions in hopes that the president wins, calculating that his tough stance in Iraq is winning al Qaeda converts?


Nobody here knows. It's equally hard to predict what the political consequences would be. Voters could blame Mr. Bush, or, more likely, rally around him in a crisis. The only predictable result would be an unpredictable election.

Write to Gerald F. Seib at [email protected]

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109701755298137220,00.html

Vote early and often

CHENEY AND BUSH MISLEAD ABOUT HUSSEIN/ZARQAWI CONNECTION

Vice President Cheney and President Bush have repeatedly claimed that al-Qaeda had a working relationship with Saddam Hussein which justified the invasion of Iraq. The key piece of evidence Cheney and President Bush have used to support this claim was that Hussein harbored Abu Musab al Zarqawi - a suspected associated of al-Qaeda. For example, on 6/21/04 Cheney said "Mr.
Zarqawi, who is in Baghdad today, is an al Qaeda associate who took refuge in Baghdad, found sanctuary and safe harbor there before we ever launched into Iraq."[1] President Bush said on 6/15/04 "Zarqawi's the best evidence of a [Hussein] connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda."[2] One problem: there is no evidence to support these claims.

Knight Ridder reports "a new CIA assessment undercuts the White House claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al Qaeda, saying there is no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi."[3] According to a senior U.S. intelligence official "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."[4] Ironically, the assessment was requested by Cheney.[5]

Sources:

1. "CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown," CNN, 06/21/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=60800.
2. "Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link," CNN, 6/15/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=60801.
3. "Iraq-al Qaeda tie called unlikely," Miami Herald, 10/05/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=60802.
4. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=60802.
5. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=60802.

Icann Wrote


You are backpedaling hard.

You have repeatedly claimed that AQ and Saddam were connected. You have provided reams of shaky evidence to back up your claim. You have used this connection (which we don't even know the extent of) to justify our invasion of Iraq over and over. Now you are saying it doesn't matter one way or the other.

We didn't attack Iraq becuase of one terrorist, who may or may not be connected to either Saddam OR AQ. We had other, non-terrorism related reasons for attacking. Your argument has failed, Icann, because the facts do not support your case for war.

See Au's post above for more info on how you are incorrect. Please come back with a stronger argument, based upon facts this time and not supposition (apparently according to you we can never base anything on facts), or concede the debate.

Cycloptichorn

another excuse bites the dust
http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=iraq



on condition of anonymity in advance of the report's release.

I hope these reports keep coming in they are doing more for the Kerry Edwards compaign than Micheal Moore. The difference is that the bush and supporters people can't discredit their own people.

I find it increasingly convenient (and irritating) that nobody can find people who will say these things on the record. How much credibility can anybody give to an unnamed source?

It'll either be bourne out when the report is released, or it won't.

As anonymous quotes go, this one isn't so bad - it'll be confirmed or denied within hours, if not a day or two. My guess is that the quoter knew this, but we'll see...

Cycloptichorn

From NYT today:

(Full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/international/middleeast/06CND-INTE.html?ex=1254801600&en=a624f1159c119b94&ei=5088&partner=rss )

"U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in '03
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: October 6, 2004


ASHINGTON, Oct. 6 ? Iraq had essentially destroyed its illicit weapons capability within months after the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991, and its capacity to produce such weapons had eroded even further by the time of the American invasion in 2003, the top American inspector in Iraq said in a report made public today.

The report, by Charles A. Duelfer, said the last Iraqi factory capable of producing militarily significant quantities of unconventional weapons was destroyed in 1996. The findings amounted to the starkest portrayal yet of a vast gap between the Bush administration's prewar assertions about Iraqi weapons and what a 15-month postinvasion inquiry by American investigators concluded were the facts on the ground.

At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer concluded, Iraq had not possessed military-scale stockpiles of illicit weapons for a dozen years and was not actively seeking to produce them.

The White House portrayed the war as a bid to disarm Iraq of unconventional weapons, and had invoked images of mushroom clouds, deadly gases and fearsome poisons. But Mr. Duelfer concluded that even if Iraq had sought to restart its weapons programs in 2003, it could not have produced militarily significant quantities of chemical weapons for at least a year, and would have required years to produce a nuclear weapon.

"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the gulf war," Mr. Duelfer said in his report, which added that American inspectors in Iraq had "found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

Hours before Mr. Duelfer's report was made public, President Bush appeared to try to deflate some the political impact of its core findings.

"After Sept. 11, America had to assess every potential threat in a new light," Mr. Bush said while campaigning in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. "Our nation awakened to an even greater danger: the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder."

"We had to take a hard look at every place where terrorists might get those weapons, and one regime stood out," Mr. Bush said. "The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein."

Mr. Duelfer presented his conclusions to Congress beginning with testimony at a closed session of the Senate Intelligence Committee. But his findings were described to reporters in advance of the testimony, although only on condition that they not be published until his afternoon appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, when the report was made public..............."

Does this help, Fox?

....."the three-volume report, totaling more than 900 pages, is viewed as the first authoritative attempt to unravel the mystery posed by Iraq during the crucial years between the end of the Persian Gulf war in 1991 and the American-led war that began in 2003. It adds new weight to what is already a widely accepted view that the most fundamental prewar assertions made by American intelligence agencies about Iraq ? that it possessed chemical and biological weapons, and was reconstituting its nuclear program ? bore no resemblance to the truth......"

Isn't "intelligence agencies" an oxymoron in the US?

What was the budget for those guys again?

to be fair:

".....Mr. Duelfer concluded that Mr. Hussein had made fundamental decisions, beginning in 1991, to get rid of Iraq's illicit weapons and accept the destruction of its weapons-producing facilities as part of an effort to end United Nations sanctions. But Mr. Duelfer argued that Mr. Hussein was also exploiting avenues opened by the sanctions, including the oil-for-food program, to lay the groundwork for a long-term plan to resume weapons production if sanctions were lifted.

Mr. Hussein "wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," the report said. But the conclusion that Mr. Hussein had intended to restart his programs, the report acknowledged, was based more on inference than solid evidence. "The regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of W.M.D. after sanctions," it said, using the common abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction......"





IMMINENT threat?????????????

Hey, don't be fair dlowan, that's not in the rules.

"...........The report was based in part on the interrogation of Mr. Hussein in his prison cell outside of Baghdad. Mr. Duelfer said he had concluded that Mr. Hussein deliberately sought to maintain an ambiguity about whether Iraq possessed illicit weapons in a strategy aimed as much at Iran, with whom Iraq fought an eight-year war in the 1980's, as at the United States.


Mr. Duelfer's report said that American investigators had found clandestine laboratories in the Baghdad area used by the Iraqi Intelligence Service to conduct research and to test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for secret assassinations rather than to inflict mass casualties. It said those laboratories were active from 1991 to 2003.

Mr. Duelfer said in his report that Mr. Hussein never disclosed in the course of the interrogations what had become of Iraq's illicit weapons. He said that American investigators had appealed to the former Iraqi leader to be candid in order to shape his legacy, but that Mr. Hussein had not been forthcoming......."

Why not?

Fair & balanced is a "liberal" concept not familiar to the conservatives. Is Cheney ever knowingly fair? Ashcroft? Rove? Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh...........etc etc

Reasonable and fair behaviour on your part is seen by these kind of people as a sign of weakness. They will use it as a reason and a means by which to attack you.